Belichick said the "stats are for losers" line when defending Randy Moss against charges he wasn't producing enough. But asked more broadly about team stats, he said this:

Well, I think they all have meaning; it’s just the priority of the stats. Wins is number one. Points is number two, because that correlates to winning. And then you get to the things that correlate to scoring, which [are] red area, big plays, and third down becomes a part of that because of being able to sustain drives and that type of things. But if you make big plays, then third down becomes less important. You can offset any good numbers with bad numbers. You can offset bad numbers with good numbers, but in the end, it’s about getting points on the board and keeping them off. You always want to improve on the things that you’re doing in all areas of the game. You want to run for more yardage, run for more consistent yardage, pass for more consistent yardage, defend it, all those things - get more negative plays, turnovers, on and on. You’re always striving to improve in every one of those areas. I’m not saying they’re not significant, they are, but the ones that correlate the highest to winning, you still have to consider them as the most important

Bill Belichick certainly pays attention to stats (especially those that correlate to winning) to help gauge how his team is doing in different areas and where it needs to improve. Stats fot stats sake are meaningless, but stats are useful for understanding a team's strengths and weaknesses and Belichick definitely sees them as useful in this way.

Bill Belichick certainly pays attention to stats (especially those that correlate to winning) to help gauge how his team is doing in different areas and where it needs to improve. Stats fot stats sake are meaningless, but stats are useful for understanding a team's strengths and weaknesses and Belichick definitely sees them as useful in this way.

I'm pretty certain Belichick focuses on scoring as many points as possible and stopping teams from scoring on him, the idea that in game he is perusing a clipboard made up of statistics is ridiculously stupid.

I think its time those who lambaste the defense as the sole reason we lose take the time to realize, like I said above, that while the defense has to continue to improve, the offense has to as well.

What you did in the regular season, what your averages were, what your %'s were, what you did in the first 5 games of the season are meaningless if you don't show up in the playoffs and score points and prevent points from being scored against you.

Having bigger, more physical receivers matters, being balanced, unpredictable, protecting the ball and time of possession by running matters, especially when you find yourself matched up with a comparable team in the playoffs.

But at the end of the day getting points, no matter how you do it, is the job of the offense and our offense has wilted against strong, pressure defenses... that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Bill Belichick certainly pays attention to stats (especially those that correlate to winning) to help gauge how his team is doing in different areas and where it needs to improve. Stats fot stats sake are meaningless, but stats are useful for understanding a team's strengths and weaknesses and Belichick definitely sees them as useful in this way.

I'm pretty certain Belichick focuses on scoring as many points as possible and stopping teams from scoring on him, the idea that in game he is perusing a clipboard made up of statistics is ridiculously stupid.

I think its time those who lambaste the defense as the sole reason we lose take the time to realize, like I said above, that while the defense has to continue to improve, the offense has to as well.

What you did in the regular season, what your averages were, what your %'s were, what you did in the first 5 games of the season are meaningless if you don't show up in the playoffs and score points and prevent points from being scored against you.

Having bigger, more physical receivers matters, being balanced, unpredictable, protecting the ball and time of possession by running matters, especially when you find yourself matched up with a comparable team in the playoffs.

But at the end of the day getting points, no matter how you do it, is the job of the offense and our offense has wilted against strong, pressure defenses... that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Obtuse much?

No one said that BB is carrying a clip board full of stats during a game. Stats are a way of evaluating trends/strengths and weakness.

Possessions matter. Points per possessions matter. They are what determine scores.

They are what determine efficiency.

I am totally dumbfounded that our resident genius's don't understand that allowing 19 points in a 8 possession game does not in any way shape or form = the efficiency in allowing 19 points in a 12 possession game. This is why points per possession are MORE valuable in determining efficiency than points per game. Not all games are = possessions.

This is not baseball.

Z is 100% correct in his assessment that points (scores) have different degrees of value.

In a 42-3 win, the last 5 TD's are not as important or instrumental in winning the game as the first. They look pretty on paper, sure, but the fact is, they could have won that game with a 7-3 point lead. The more scores there are, the less significant the scores become.

Of course the score would determine play going forward but anything over a 2-3 score lead, is just window dressing. Junk.

Possessions matter. Points per possessions matter. They are what determine scores.

They are what determine efficiency.

I am totally dumbfounded that our resident genius's don't understand that allowing 19 points in a 8 possession game does not in any way shape or form = the efficiency in allowing 19 points in a 12 possession game. This is why points per possession are MORE valuable in determining efficiency than points per game. Not all games are = possessions.

This is not baseball.

Z is 100% correct in his assessment that points (scores) have different degrees of value.

The Patriot's and Giant's had an equal amount of possessions in their last Super Bowl, thePatriot's defense forced the Giant's offense to punt one more time than the Giant's D did to us.

The difference was the two turnovers by the Patriot's offense, and their inability to score.

Giving back your precious possessions certainly didn't help did it, or did it, you tell me since you're the expert on obscure and irrelevent stats?

I guess the big question is, since when is the offense not scoring when they have the ball the defense's fault?!

The Patriot's offense didn't score with their allotted possessions, this isn't quantum physics, look up the word obtuse since I don't think you know what it means or you never would have written this post and proved my point for me.

Possessions matter. Points per possessions matter. They are what determine scores.

They are what determine efficiency.

I am totally dumbfounded that our resident genius's don't understand that allowing 19 points in a 8 possession game does not in any way shape or form = the efficiency in allowing 19 points in a 12 possession game. This is why points per possession are MORE valuable in determining efficiency than points per game. Not all games are = possessions.

This is not baseball.

Z is 100% correct in his assessment that points (scores) have different degrees of value.

The Patriot's and Giant's had an equal amount of possessions in their last Super Bowl, thePatriot's defense forced the Giant's offense to punt one more time than the Giant's D did to us.

The difference was the two turnovers by the Patriot's offense, and their inability to score.

Giving back your precious possessions certainly didn't help did it, or did it, you tell me since you're the expert on obscure and irrelevent stats?

I guess the big question is, since when is the offense not scoring when they have the ball the defense's fault?!

The Patriot's offense didn't score with their allotted possessions, this isn't quantum physics, look up the word obtuse since I don't think you know what it means or you never would have written this post and proved my point for me.

Thanks

What on earth are you talking about. Where was it ever said that there were an uneven amount of possessions.

There were decreased possessions and the D's inability to get off the field was the cause of that. Is this really above your comprehension?

Yes they punted one more time. Which one was that? The one from our 40 or 42 or 44 or 46? Never once did they stop them in their own territory and none took less than an eternity. 9,10 play drives, regardless of a score or not, are a victory. 5 minutes off the clock, for every half possession, is a victory. A whole possession should only take 5 minutes but they were 7.5 minutes.

Every minute you keep the QB off the field is a victory.

He can't score from the bench. That is indisputable. Keeping him OFF THE FIELD for 4 whole possessions, is inexcusable and beyond horrendous. I only know of 2, 8 possession games and they were both Pats/Gints and in the FREAKIN SB, no less! There may be more but never before has a D been so inept in a SB.

Even when the Gints beat the Bills (the same way) it was a 10 possession game. Ridiculous.

No one scores on all their possessions. An average team scores on only about 32% of them. Do you think the Pats should have scored on 62% (with needing one more TD or 2 FG's) of theirs, because that's what it would have taken to beat the 50% the Jints were afforded. The very least it would have taken is to match that 50% but with a 3/1 TD/FG ratio.

It's EXTREMELY difficult to score on 50% of your possessions. Usually it means you are being helped by your ST and defense with picks, in doing so OR ELSE you are playing against a D that can't force a single 3 & out, and a single turn-over and make one single stop on the right side of the field and you aren't starting from your own 8 or less for most of the game.

Guess you think it's a coincidence that every no name QB in the world has their best game EVA, against the Pats D. It's not.

Bill Belichick certainly pays attention to stats (especially those that correlate to winning) to help gauge how his team is doing in different areas and where it needs to improve. Stats fot stats sake are meaningless, but stats are useful for understanding a team's strengths and weaknesses and Belichick definitely sees them as useful in this way.

I'm pretty certain Belichick focuses on scoring as many points as possible and stopping teams from scoring on him, the idea that in game he is perusing a clipboard made up of statistics is ridiculously stupid.

Wozzy, as Pezz says, no one thinks BB walks around with an excel spreadsheet on the sidelines looking at stats. But it's ridiculously stupid to think he doesn't use statistics to evaluate his team's performance. it's also ridiculously stupid to think he isn't aware in game of things like length of possession and number of possessions. He's an excellent strategist and like any good strategist he's definitely considering all those things. It's why he's so good at in-game adjustments.

I think its time those who lambaste the defense as the sole reason we lose take the time to realize, like I said above, that while the defense has to continue to improve, the offense has to as well.

What you did in the regular season, what your averages were, what your %'s were, what you did in the first 5 games of the season are meaningless if you don't show up in the playoffs and score points and prevent points from being scored against you.

Having bigger, more physical receivers matters, being balanced, unpredictable, protecting the ball and time of possession by running matters, especially when you find yourself matched up with a comparable team in the playoffs.

But at the end of the day getting points, no matter how you do it, is the job of the offense and our offense has wilted against strong, pressure defenses... that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

I've always agreed that both sides of the ball are to blame. I see no reason to make excuses for the offense not scoring points, but the defense gave up scores on half the Giants' possessions which is hardly stellar performance either.

Number of possessions per game does make a difference because the fewer possessions in a game the fewer the chances to score. In an 8 possession game, the maximum possible points you can score on offense is 56 (64 if you assume two-point conversions). In a more typical 11 possession game, the maximum possible offensive points increases to 77 (88 with two-point conversions). If you assume that a good offense will realize a third of the maximum points available, you'd expect a good offense to score about 18 or 19 points in an eight possession game and about 25 to 26 points in an 11 possession game. Points matter most, but you need possessions to score points and if you end up with fewer possessions you'll also end up with fewr points. In the Super Bowl, both teams had equal possessions (because possessions nearly always alternate, teams nearly always have equal possessions). The Pats' 17 points was a tad lower than you'd expect in 8 possessions for a great offense, while the Giants 19 was a tad higher than you'd expect for an average offense. In other words, against our defense, the Giants offense performed better than expected, while our offense performed a bit worse than expected against the Giants' defense.

No QB in the history of the NFL has EVER won a SB with a defense that failed to force even, 1 3 & out, failed to force one T/O, failed to stop the offense on their own side of the field even once and allowed the other team to score on 50% of their possessions and kept their own QB off the field for 2/3rds of the game.

NO one ever has and no one ever will.

No, go away little girl and let the adults have a conversation.

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

Bill Belichick certainly pays attention to stats (especially those that correlate to winning) to help gauge how his team is doing in different areas and where it needs to improve. Stats fot stats sake are meaningless, but stats are useful for understanding a team's strengths and weaknesses and Belichick definitely sees them as useful in this way.

I'm pretty certain Belichick focuses on scoring as many points as possible and stopping teams from scoring on him, the idea that in game he is perusing a clipboard made up of statistics is ridiculously stupid.

I think its time those who lambaste the defense as the sole reason we lose take the time to realize, like I said above, that while the defense has to continue to improve, the offense has to as well.

What you did in the regular season, what your averages were, what your %'s were, what you did in the first 5 games of the season are meaningless if you don't show up in the playoffs and score points and prevent points from being scored against you.

Having bigger, more physical receivers matters, being balanced, unpredictable, protecting the ball and time of possession by running matters, especially when you find yourself matched up with a comparable team in the playoffs.

But at the end of the day getting points, no matter how you do it, is the job of the offense and our offense has wilted against strong, pressure defenses... that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Obtuse much?

No one said that BB is carrying a clip board full of stats during a game. Stats are a way of evaluating trends/strengths and weakness.

Possessions matter. Points per possessions matter. They are what determine scores.

They are what determine efficiency.

I am totally dumbfounded that our resident genius's don't understand that allowing 19 points in a 8 possession game does not in any way shape or form = the efficiency in allowing 19 points in a 12 possession game. This is why points per possession are MORE valuable in determining efficiency than points per game. Not all games are = possessions.

This is not baseball.

Z is 100% correct in his assessment that points (scores) have different degrees of value.

In a 42-3 win, the last 5 TD's are not as important or instrumental in winning the game as the first. They look pretty on paper, sure, but the fact is, they could have won that game with a 7-3 point lead. The more scores there are, the less significant the scores become.

Of course the score would determine play going forward but anything over a 2-3 score lead, is just window dressing. Junk.

"genius's"????

Don't talk down to others, assuming a a superiority with intelligence when you can't even for a proper plural of the word "genius", genius.

It's "geniuses".

Ugh. You lose again, Pezzy. How about our HOF QB just doesn't suck or be so plainly mediocre in our biggest games? Who wins SBs with mediocre or crappy QB play? Outside of Ben Roethlisberger, can you answer that question?

All this pathetic overanalysis and excuses for him because you have a real crush on Tom Brady has become so annoying.

Did you just compare the 1930 era of the NFL to 2013 when every single facet of the game favors the QB and offenses to score points for bigger ratings?

Did you, ZBellino?

Well Rusty, considering the foward pass was half illegal in 1930 an the ball was still practically round, I don't think I was.

1.) But rankings are still rankings. A top 20% ranking on defense is as good as a top 20% is now. It doesn't matter what the score looks like.

Rankings are rankings because they rate you against your opponentswhether the average team is scoring 200 points a season or 1000 points a season ... a bottom 30% defense is bad.

If you are bottom 10 now in PPD, and you were bottom 3 in 1930, your defense basically stunk, whether it is 1930 or 2012. You are bad. Bottom of the league.

Hence the point of ranking teams.

2.) Rankings and averages effect all teams equally. In 2003-2006 the Patriots defense gave up an average of about 15 points per game ... in 2012 the Seattle Seahawks ALSO gave up an average of about 15 points per game while since 2009 New England gives up about 21 ppg.

The league wide scoring differential between those two selections is 1 point. Not the 6 New England is giving up.

It's not because teams can't only allow about 15 points per game, Seattle and San Fran did it last season, The Steelers and San Fran did it the year before, the Packers and Steelers did it the year before that, the Ravens have allow 15-17 points per game for all of those seasons save 2012 when they played most of the year without Ray Lewis.

Just because New England's defense has slipped ... doesn't mean it's impossible to prevent points. Many teams still play highly effective defense ... and New England's dimished defense is not an artifact of the rules, but an outcome of relative talent on defense.

3.) Lastly .... NFL teams aren't scoring more now than historically when we adjust for major rule changes that alter the game. Yes, the adoption of the forward pass was tremendous for scoring, as was the adoption of the 6 point touchdown, or the switch to the spiraling ovoid shaped footballs, etc.

But modern football scoring has been about the same for about 60-65 seasons. In the 1950s the average teams scored about 22 points per game ... which is the same score that averaged in the last decade. In fact the span from the mid to late 40s through the 1960s was possibly a better scoring era than we are in now.

Minor, 3-5 point shifts in points scored have happened on an up and down basis since the inception of modern football in the NFL.

The most recent rule changes have done very little, relatively speaking.

So please desist from backing a claim with something that isn't factual.

Yes, the NFL put a point of emphasis on the five yard chuck rule since 2005, that's a fact ... but your claim that it's had dramatic effect on scoring is fiction. It's had a nominal effect (~1 point per game) on overall league scoring if any at all, as one point could just be attributable to the ebb and flow of league talent.

All in all ... your point is pretty hollow. If you want to back your argument ... I'd bring up something that holds water a bit better than "defenses have it tougher now."

It's just not good defense ... it's not rule changes because everyone would be playing worse defense, not just NE.

Except our D has been middle of the road in points allowed the last 3 years. It hasn't stunk at all.

It's not elite, but it hasn't stunk. You don't get to play in SBs with a bad defense. Just doesn't happen.

YOU please desist from pretending yards allowed is how you would really rank a defense's quality.

Good day.

I didn't say NE's defense was last during the regular season, Russ.

Those were hypotheticals ... I could have just as easily said top 10/top 3, the point was that rankings exist across eras ... if you are 5th out of 100 in 1890 and you are 5th out of 100 in 2025 ... you are equally "better" than your opponents.

You are right ... NE's scoring defense is middle of the pack the last few seasons.

That's a sea-change from the stretch from 2003-2006 when they were top 3 every season.

My point is that NE's whole team isn't good enough right now. That's my 2 cents.

Those early 2000's team would beat this team.

Also, although I was not referring to them .... yards ... do ... matter. Except in big play scenarios ... yards = first downs which = lost TOP for your offense, lost drives for your offense, or worse field position for your offense.

While points are the most important barometer of a defense.... yards are the second most important because they tell you how well the defense is doing at maintaining field position battles and at getting the ball back to the offense in a timely manner.

The "yards don't matter" mantra is an old hat ... it's reductive, and overlooks a whole lot about how football is actually played.

Lastly ... the Giants' defense when healthy is a whole lot better than NE's. It's not really even close.

Their pass rush has basically been the story about their two superbowl runs ... shutting Atlanta out, holding GB to 17 points and 20 points through OT in both games. Holding SF to 17 points. Yeah, holding NE to 17. These are elite offenses they were shutting down out there. These are top ten and top five offenses we are talking about.

If you think NE's defense could do that... you would have to show me the games against the elite offenses, like the SF's, the Green Bays, the New Orleans, etc, that New England has held them even under 24 points. If there are any ... they are exceptions and not the rule.

The last time NE played Green Bay they gave up 27 points to a backup ... the last time they played Sf they gave up 41. New Orleans? 38.

They don't ... they usually get beat up, giving over 30 or 40 points up.

Giants' defensive stats in the regular season are absolutely meaningless, when they get healthy and heat up ... and pitch winning ball like that ... they are an amazing defense.

NE couldn't do that. Not without another star player or two.

Your problem is, you haven't realized that offense now win championships. It's a war of attrition on defense, but the offense HAS to get to 20 points minimum in these games now.

If we can't do that on offense, there is no point in over-analyzing any flaw of ANY defense.

NE's D was actually really good in the 2011 postseason. Spkes iNT should have iced it vs Balt and rested our D more in the 4th.

More of it would happen in the 4th for us, starting with Brady's INT and subsequent remaining short, quick drives which led to no points. Brady had all day on that pass to Welker, that he missed.

Giants pass rush was nicely contained in the 2nd half of SB 46. Our offense just didn't do anything past the first drive out of halftime.

You have to realize that DEFENSES win championships, not Offenses as evidenced by the 5/1 ratio of teams with a top D winning the SB. The top rated Offense has only won 1 SB in the last decade. The top ranked D has won 5 times.

Teams with the top rated O and the 31st ranked D have never won! EVER!!!!!!

No QB in the history of the NFL has EVER won a SB with a defense that failed to force even, 1 3 & out, failed to force one T/O, failed to stop the offense on their own side of the field even once and allowed the other team to score on 50% of their possessions and kept their own QB off the field for 2/3rds of the game.

NO one ever has and no one ever will.

No, go away little girl and let the adults have a conversation.

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

Bill Belichick certainly pays attention to stats (especially those that correlate to winning) to help gauge how his team is doing in different areas and where it needs to improve. Stats fot stats sake are meaningless, but stats are useful for understanding a team's strengths and weaknesses and Belichick definitely sees them as useful in this way.

I'm pretty certain Belichick focuses on scoring as many points as possible and stopping teams from scoring on him, the idea that in game he is perusing a clipboard made up of statistics is ridiculously stupid.

I think its time those who lambaste the defense as the sole reason we lose take the time to realize, like I said above, that while the defense has to continue to improve, the offense has to as well.

What you did in the regular season, what your averages were, what your %'s were, what you did in the first 5 games of the season are meaningless if you don't show up in the playoffs and score points and prevent points from being scored against you.

Having bigger, more physical receivers matters, being balanced, unpredictable, protecting the ball and time of possession by running matters, especially when you find yourself matched up with a comparable team in the playoffs.

But at the end of the day getting points, no matter how you do it, is the job of the offense and our offense has wilted against strong, pressure defenses... that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Obtuse much?

No one said that BB is carrying a clip board full of stats during a game. Stats are a way of evaluating trends/strengths and weakness.

Possessions matter. Points per possessions matter. They are what determine scores.

They are what determine efficiency.

I am totally dumbfounded that our resident genius's don't understand that allowing 19 points in a 8 possession game does not in any way shape or form = the efficiency in allowing 19 points in a 12 possession game. This is why points per possession are MORE valuable in determining efficiency than points per game. Not all games are = possessions.

This is not baseball.

Z is 100% correct in his assessment that points (scores) have different degrees of value.

In a 42-3 win, the last 5 TD's are not as important or instrumental in winning the game as the first. They look pretty on paper, sure, but the fact is, they could have won that game with a 7-3 point lead. The more scores there are, the less significant the scores become.

Of course the score would determine play going forward but anything over a 2-3 score lead, is just window dressing. Junk.

"genius's"????

Don't talk down to others, assuming a a superiority with intelligence when you can't even for a proper plural of the word "genius", genius.

It's "geniuses".

Ugh. You lose again, Pezzy. How about our HOF QB just doesn't suck or be so plainly mediocre in our biggest games? Who wins SBs with mediocre or crappy QB play? Outside of Ben Roethlisberger, can you answer that question?

All this pathetic overanalysis and excuses for him because you have a real crush on Tom Brady has become so annoying.

Look at Pezzy. He's so worked up he can't even use the quote function properly.

Not worked up at all. This forum places the response incorrectly. I merely hit reply to post.

Where it goes from there, nobody knows.

Now do you have a comment about the fact that NO QB IN THE HISTORY OF THE NFL has ever won with such an inept defense or are you too busy playing fake spelling and quote function police. Nannynanny booboo! you spelled a word wrong! LMAO@U

Now I took you at your word on this... but then your next sentence started like this;

Number of possessions per game does make a difference...

I agree that possessions matter.

So the Pat's offense turning the ball over twice, first on the opening drive (safety, cost us two points and a possession), and the other to start the fourth quarter ON A FIRST DOWN with the slimmest of leads, did in fact matter.

I think that most, if not all of us would agree that all three phases of the game haven't played perfect in this or most games over the last 5 years. My problem is that whenever we get to talking about why they haven't won the big one, the first thing our fans say is "defense."

And while I agree wholeheartedly that defense wins championships, that if we had a dominant defense we would have won and would have, but we've had at least two chances to win one with our bloated offensive payroll philosophy, last year and 2011 spending slim pickings on defense and still coming within a whiff of new hardware.

In 2007 I give it up to that team because they went for it all, they could have rested guys, stretched the roster out, but they didn't, they tried to win every game and put on an amazing show. The offense and defense broke down in the final game and it was the end of a defensive era.

Last year the offense broke down and the defense did what it had done all year, be just better than average. The offense laid an absolute egg, it was soft when we absolutely needed it to win, in fact our only chance to win.

And what did they serve up; one and 2/3rds of a quarter with no scoring at all, Aaron Hernandez scores with 11:25 left on the clock in the third quarter, three possessions, the last 26 minutes of the game, zero points, no time taken off the clock with a lead and a turnover instead, they even had the ball at the end with a minute left and threw three straight incompletions.

I can't complain, for a defensive "rebuilding" year to still be in a Super Bowl hunt is a privilege, but don't tell me the defense didn't show up and the offense did, because the exact opposite is true if we're talking statistics, averages, final score or however you guys place value on wins these days.

I am totally dumbfounded that our resident genius's don't understand that allowing 19 points in a 8 possession game does not in any way shape or form = the efficiency in allowing 19 points in a 12 possession game. This is why points per possession are MORE valuable in determining efficiency than points per game. Not all games are = possessions.

Either way, it's 19 points. If your team has more than that, it doesn't make any difference how many times the other team had the ball. The rest of it is just hindsight talking points.

THEY were ranked 31st in total D, which includes, ToP, yards and 3rd down conversions, and is exactlywhat KILLED them in the game. 26, 1st downs in 8 possessions! PFFT

The Giants defense ranked 27th in yards and 25th in points, WORSE THAN THE PATRIOTS!

But their offense didn't turn the ball over and they scored more, they played a ball control, pound the rock offense, with precision high % passing and played the clock perfectly... they did to us what our offense did to others back in our Championship years... rocked them to sleep. The only ones who can't see that are some of our fans.

THEY were ranked 31st in total D, which includes, ToP, yards and 3rd down conversions, and is exactlywhat KILLED them in the game. 26, 1st downs in 8 possessions! PFFT

The Giants defense ranked 27th in yards and 25th in points, WORSE THAN THE PATRIOTS!

But their offense didn't turn the ball over and they scored more, they played a ball control, pound the rock offense, with precision high % passing and played the clock perfectly... they did to us what our offense did to others back in our Championship years... rocked them to sleep. The only ones who can't see that are some of our fans.

Yup that was some high precision passing alright. 75% completion, Wow!

Who does that?

I think TB has only done it once in his career. ???

Eli MUST truly be one of the greats. Either that or he was playing a JV defense.

Now I took you at your word on this... but then your next sentence started like this;

Number of possessions per game does make a difference...

I agree that possessions matter.

So the Pat's offense turning the ball over twice, first on the opening drive (safety, cost us two points and a possession), and the other to start the fourth quarter ON A FIRST DOWN with the slimmest of leads, did in fact matter.

I think that most, if not all of us would agree that all three phases of the game haven't played perfect in this or most games over the last 5 years. My problem is that whenever we get to talking about why they haven't won the big one, the first thing our fans say is "defense."

And while I agree wholeheartedly that defense wins championships, that if we had a dominant defense we would have won and would have, but we've had at least two chances to win one with our bloated offensive payroll philosophy, last year and 2011 spending slim pickings on defense and still coming within a whiff of new hardware.

In 2007 I give it up to that team because they went for it all, they could have rested guys, stretched the roster out, but they didn't, they tried to win every game and put on an amazing show. The offense and defense broke down in the final game and it was the end of a defensive era.

Last year the offense broke down and the defense did what it had done all year, be just better than average. The offense laid an absolute egg, it was soft when we absolutely needed it to win, in fact our only chance to win.

And what did they serve up; one and 2/3rds of a quarter with no scoring at all, Aaron Hernandez scores with 11:25 left on the clock in the third quarter, three possessions, the last 26 minutes of the game, zero points, no time taken off the clock with a lead and a turnover instead, they even had the ball at the end with a minute left and threw three straight incompletions.

I can't complain, for a defensive "rebuilding" year to still be in a Super Bowl hunt is a privilege, but don't tell me the defense didn't show up and the offense did, because the exact opposite is true if we're talking statistics, averages, final score or however you guys place value on wins these days.

I never said one side showed up and one didn't Wozzy. All I'm saying is that both sides played below the necessary level in my opinion. On offense, I think the biggest problems were Gronk's injury (he's our primary impact player on offense other than Brady and our number one redzone receiving threat as well as a big part of the run game) and poor blocking against the Giant's excellent D line. On defense, we just fell apart in pass coverage too often. Manning's 75% completion percentage on 40 passes allowed the Giants to convert first downs and maintain very long drives (averaging almost twice as long as the average drive in the NFL). Maybe the offense underperformed its normal performance and the D matched or even exceeded it's normal performance. I don't really care, though. Bottom line was neither side of the ball played at a championship level.

If you have two employees one who's usually stellar and one who always screws up and both fail on a particular project do you blame the stellar guy for failing this time, but excuse the screw-up because the screw-up always messes up? No, you blame both. When I look at the Pats performance in SB 46, I blame both sides of the ball and the fact that the defense tended to underperform all year while the offense tended to overperform doesn't make a bit of difference: bottom line is both sides played below what they needed to and both deserve the blame.

THEY were ranked 31st in total D, which includes, ToP, yards and 3rd down conversions, and is exactlywhat KILLED them in the game. 26, 1st downs in 8 possessions! PFFT

The Giants defense ranked 27th in yards and 25th in points, WORSE THAN THE PATRIOTS!

But their offense didn't turn the ball over and they scored more, they played a ball control, pound the rock offense, with precision high % passing and played the clock perfectly... they did to us what our offense did to others back in our Championship years... rocked them to sleep. The only ones who can't see that are some of our fans.

Here's your answer. I just found this article today but it supports what I have been trying to get across to you for two years.

The Pat's D was BAD! Inexplicably bad! Worse than any one can imagine, BAD!

In case you don't want to read it, here are some pertinent FACTS.

The giants currently hold the record for the worst DPR of any SB winning team, a 83.4 DPR.

In contrast that would mean the Pat's O played pretty darn good, despite the low points that were influenced by the low possessions.

The Pats DRP in that game was a whopping and unheard of, 91.7.

The average SB winning team's DPR (in the live era) is a 64.36.

Only one Pat's D, since 1960, had a worse DPR, (92.2) the 72 Pats with a 3-11 record.

That means all the other poor Pats teams, SINCE 1960, had better defenses than what we currently have. MIND BLOWING!

The SB winning Pats had DPRs of 75.3, 68.6 and 56.2. A far cry from that 91.7

Moral of the story: Although the Pats O was not perfect, it beyond obvious that they would have had to have been to win that game. Operating with such a HUGE deficit (the defense), it would have taken a miracle to win.

There are no perfect QB's, but there are defenses that either make or break you.

Tom Brady was able to overcome and win with DPR of 75.3 (below average) before, but a 91.7?????? Not happening unless the other team is WORSE. (which is how the Gints were able to win with their poor DPR) Unfortunately, no SB winner has ever been worse.

I think this might end up being one of Brady's finest seasons to date. Two of his best in his career came with a lot of turnover at the receiver spots.

2006: Branch is traded and Givens walks as a FA. His top receiver is Reche "Drop the Ball" Caldwell, with 34 year old Troy Brown, Jabar Gaffney, and Doug Gabriel also contributing. What happens? He gets them to within one dropped pass and the worst Pass Interfernece call in playoff history of a 4th Super Bowl berth in 6 years. If Caldwell hangs on to that pass or Peyton wasn't gifted 50 yards to the 2 yard line, the Brady vs Peyton debate would have been over 7 years ago, as Brady would likely have 4 rings and Peyton 0.

2010: His second year back from the knee injury, Randy Moss is traded 4 games into the season. The offense is now run through two rookie tight ends and Wes Welker, who is coming off a major knee injury of his own the last game of previous season. What happens? He goes over 350 passes without an INT, and finishes with 36 TDs to 4 INTs, becoming the only unanimous MVP in NFL history.

When I look at the Pats performance in SB 46, I blame both sides of the ball and the fact that the defense tended to underperform all year while the offense tended to overperform doesn't make a bit of difference: bottom line is both sides played below what they needed to and both deserve the blame.

I actually think it's a boring conversation. Team building doesn't come down to looking at one game ... but it comes down to looking at a large sample ... taking a statistical long view.

You aren't tailoring your team to beat one opponent, you don't even know that opponent, and you are going to play 13-15 other teams over the course of a Superbowl run.

The NFL season is long and the team has to be a cohesive structure. More importantly, assessing and reacting to the assessment of that structure comes in cycles that are even longer, probably encompasing 4-6 seasons.

Yes both sides played beneath their expectations in one game, even if you expect perfection from one and mere mediocrity of the other, but it still doesn't matter. It's one game, even two or three games, not a trend. Here is the long view:

The defense plays poorly, especially against the pass, quite often. New England still wins many of those games.

The offense, especially without Gronkowski, plays poorly on a few rare occaisons. New England loses those games almost all the time.

New England just doesn't win unless they score 23-24 points or more. The irony is over the last few seasons that is about the threshhold for an "average" scoring team ... drive statistics aside becuase the sample is immense enough to factor in a varied number of drives.

Pats Record against SB field when -23 Points are Scored on Offense

Pats .214 WP

0-2 2012 Ravens 3-3

1-32011 Giants 4-4

0-32010 Packers 4-4

2-62009 Saint 2-3

Realy, a quick pause is in order ... this team has scored less than 23 points only 9 TIMES in the last three seasons. That has to be a record. Really. What's even more amazing is that of those nine times 6 of them occured without Gronkowski, Hernandez, or Welker suiting up.

Really. Over the long view ... only injuries to major parts significantly slow this offense. Back to the analysis.

You should not be expected to win 75% of games with that score ... but you should do better than 3-14 when the offense doesn't score four or five times.

Please don't respond that it's a different era ... there is a ~1 point differential between this half decade and the half decade when New England was winning Superbowls, and of course there is this fact ->

Teams that win the Superbowl, as you see, are about .500 as ball clubs in games where they score less than 23 points in that span.

The long view reveals the tromp trompe-l'œil of blaming Bill Belichik's offense.

What the fan is missing is the long view. When your team has only lost 19 games in a four year span, and 14 of those 19 are when the offense isn't scoring at least 23 .. but most likely something closer to 30-35, the fan's eye is spoiled.

New England has played in 71 games over that span ... losing only 19. It's really astounding as records go. But when almost all of those few losses revolve around an offense not scoring it's traditional 30 points ... you need to realize that New England is a fundamentally unbalanced team, even if already excellent.

They could tweak the offense here and there ... but it will amount to little considering the main culprit on the rare occaisons they underachieve or play average ball is really just health.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Despite the noise on this forum, I think BB gets this, given the host of high rated players he has taken in the first and second on defense: I think it's 10 defenders to just 5 offesive players in that span in the first two rounds, with an even more lopsided 4-1 d/o in the first round.

The issue is that New England isn't seeing results fast enough from those selections on defense, but are getting immediate returns from players like Gronk, Ridley, Solder, and Vollmer. Of course it helps that those guys play around Brady, but still you'd expect more from a defense that has been basically composed of first and second round selections: Chung, Brace, Butler, Cunningham, Spikes, DMC, Dowling, Hightower, Jones, and Wilson.

But I think the story is really how badly New England missed on that first group (Chung, Brace, Butler, and Cunningham) that really impeded the development of their defense. If they hit with just two of them, for instance Butler and Chung, then they might not have been forced to draft Dowling and Wilson, and could have packaged picks for a move, or simply used them elsewhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact is that for New England to be a legitimate Superbowl winning team, they should have been able to come down with at least another 5 wins out of those games.

You can't just write them off and say, well they turned the ball over once. On their Superbowl runs of the first half of the decade, New England turned the ball over plenty of times. They won games scoring just 13, 17, 19, 21, whatever. They turned the ball over in each Superbowl, as a matter of fact, but the first one.

Every one of those teams above turned the ball over multiple times en route to winning the big game. It just happens. To hold New England's offense to this unrealistic standard is futile: play perfect, every game, score 30 or more, because your defense is going to give up about 25 a game in the playoffs. It's just not going to happen.

Until they can win something around .500 of their "low" scoring games, they won't really be a shoe-in for a Superbowl run, because it will always rest on their offense scoring lots of points all the time, which is a practical impossibility given the series of game plans they will see, natural attrition, and regular ups and downs that face any scoring unit (offense or defense) measured in averages (which are averages not rules).

The hand-wringing about what to do with the offense is really just a waste of time. Stay healthy ... keep plugging away. Even though it's a national fact ... sort of just understood when you read papers and websites outside of New England... still, not nearly enough attention has been paid to how New England can build a defense that can reliably win a low scoring game.

When I look at the Pats performance in SB 46, I blame both sides of the ball and the fact that the defense tended to underperform all year while the offense tended to overperform doesn't make a bit of difference: bottom line is both sides played below what they needed to and both deserve the blame.

I actually think it's a boring conversation. Team building doesn't come down to looking at one game ... but it comes down to looking at a large sample ... taking a statistical long view.

You are right that, from an overall perspective when you're trying to evaluate a team's strengths and weaknesses, looking at just one game (even the Super Bowl) is meaningless, because, like you say, you have to build a team to beat all opponents and also because any single game could be an abberation. You can't judge a hitter by looking at one at-bat. Similarly, you can't judge a football team by looking at a single game.

At the same time, I do think the SB is a bit interesting to analyze because I think the defense's flaws from all season were apparent in that game as well: mostly, the defense gave up way too many first downs, in large part because they gave up too many completions. They also gave up a quick scoring drive late in the game, something that has hurt them in a lot of games where they've lost. Remember Merriweather being way out of position in the Jets playoff game in 2010? Remember the end of the Buffalo regular season game (Brady's three interception game) when the secondary fell apart on two drives? The Eli Manningham completion was much like those games . . .

The Super Bowl also showed an example of what typically happens in those rare instances when the offense underperforms. The fact is, over the past few years, the offense has lacked diversity and depth. Generally, it wins by keeping teams off balance thanks to a hurry-up approach that relies heavily on (1) Brady's super-accurate and super-quick decision making in the short, quick passing game and (2) three good short-field receivers (Welker, Gronk, Hern). There are two things that mess this offense up: (1) the loss of one of those receivers or (2) a good front seven that can keep Brady under pressure (or concerned about pressure) while still covering the short receivers. In the SB, both these factors were present. Gronk was injured and the Giants' D line was dominant.

______________

New England just doesn't win unless they score 23-24 points or more. The irony is over the last few seasons that is about the threshhold for an "average" scoring team ... drive statistics aside becuase the sample is immense enough to factor in a varied number of drives.

Pats Record against SB field when -23 Points are Scored on Offense

Pats .214 WP

0-2 2012 Ravens 3-3

1-32011 Giants 4-4

0-32010 Packers 4-4

2-62009 Saint 2-3

Realy, a quick pause is in order ... this team has scored less than 23 points only 9 TIMES in the last three seasons. That has to be a record. Really. What's even more amazing is that of those nine times 6 of them occured without Gronkowski, Hernandez, or Welker suiting up.

Really. Over the long view ... only injuries to major parts significantly slow this offense. Back to the analysis.

You should not be expected to win 75% of games with that score ... but you should do better than 3-14 when the offense doesn't score four or five times.

These are very telling stats.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Despite the noise on this forum, I think BB gets this, given the host of high rated players he has taken in the first and second on defense: I think it's 10 defenders to just 5 offesive players in that span in the first two rounds, with an even more lopsided 4-1 d/o in the first round.

The issue is that New England isn't seeing results fast enough from those selections on defense, but are getting immediate returns from players like Gronk, Ridley, Solder, and Vollmer. Of course it helps that those guys play around Brady, but still you'd expect more from a defense that has been basically composed of first and second round selections: Chung, Brace, Butler, Cunningham, Spikes, DMC, Dowling, Hightower, Jones, and Wilson.

But I think the story is really how badly New England missed on that first group (Chung, Brace, Butler, and Cunningham) that really impeded the development of their defense. If they hit with just two of them, for instance Butler and Chung, then they might not have been forced to draft Dowling and Wilson, and could have packaged picks for a move, or simply used them elsewhere.

This has to be taken into account when rating BB's performance as a GM. Babe has a whole thread about that elsewhere. I think BB is a very good GM, but the misses in these drafts have been significant and are what keep me from agreeing with Rusty that BB is the best GM in the history of sports--or whatever his hyperbolic claim is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The hand-wringing about what to do with the offense is really just a waste of time. Stay healthy ... keep plugging away. Even though it's a national fact ... sort of just understood when you read papers and websites outside of New England... still, not nearly enough attention has been paid to how New England can build a defense that can reliably win a low scoring game.

Agree, though I think getting a bit more diversity and depth in the offense would help. Defense is the number one priority, but I'm hoping we see something more diverse from the offense this year with the new WRs and the continued development of the RBs. We just have to hope that the TE position straightens itself out. The loss of Hern and the uncertainty around Gronk make what once seemed a strength into more of a question mark.

I am excited to see the defense in preseason I do think there's some real potential for it to be better this year. I'm most excited about what seems to be an increase in athleticism among the front seven. And the secondary I believe is improved as long as Talib and Dennard stay healthy. Can't wait to see what this group does once camp and preseason start. Back in 2003 and 2004, I used to enjoy watching the defense more than I did the offense. It's been a while since I've felt that way. The defense just makes me nervous whenever they are on the field. I'm just waiting for that big pass play or other breakdown that's going to blow a lead . . .

The Super Bowl also showed an example of what typically happens in those rare instances when the offense underperforms. The fact is, over the past few years, the offense has lacked diversity and depth. Generally, it wins by keeping teams off balance thanks to a hurry-up approach that relies heavily on (1) Brady's super-accurate and super-quick decision making in the short, quick passing game and (2) three good short-field receivers (Welker, Gronk, Hern). There are two things that mess this offense up: (1) the loss of one of those receivers or (2) a good front seven that can keep Brady under pressure (or concerned about pressure) while still covering the short receivers. In the SB, both these factors were present. Gronk was injured and the Giants' D line was dominant.

This is partially true. I think there is a tendency to lump those two Superbowls together. One was all about the Giants Dline. The Pats offense really struggled to move the ball. McDaniels and BB couldn't adjust. The offensive line got beaten bad. Tom Brady was basically a punching bag ... Maroney was a zero.

But the second one was much more efficient. If you gave me those numbers by the offense over the course of a season (scoring percentage on drives, yardage, turnover rate) you are talking about a good offense. That they had so few opportunities to score with, is another story altogether.

This has to be taken into account when rating BB's performance as a GM. Babe has a whole thread about that elsewhere. I think BB is a very good GM, but the misses in these drafts have been significant and are what keep me from agreeing with Rusty that BB is the best GM in the history of sports--or whatever his hyperbolic claim is.

Both sides are off base ... but Rusty is closer I think. If I follow Babe's logic, BB is terrible. That's simply not true. Between 2007 and 2009 he had a really rough go of it, especially drafting defense. But he's been white-hot drafting offense the last few seasons, pretty much, and his defensive selections (outside Dowling to date) are actually contributing at various levels, with some upside to spare. And he had a very special run of it early in the 2000s. More or less, he keeps the team stocked with enough talent to make a run at it ... btu they are still a season or so away in my opinion.

And he

The hand-wringing about what to do with the offense is really just a waste of time. Stay healthy ... keep plugging away. Even though it's a national fact ... sort of just understood when you read papers and websites outside of New England... still, not nearly enough attention has been paid to how New England can build a defense that can reliably win a low scoring game.

Agree, though I think getting a bit more diversity and depth in the offense would help. Defense is the number one priority, but I'm hoping we see something more diverse from the offense this year with the new WRs and the continued development of the RBs. We just have to hope that the TE position straightens itself out. The loss of Hern and the uncertainty around Gronk make what once seemed a strength into more of a question mark.

Me too. Why not. Forcing defenses to cover more of the field, top to bottom, side to side, will just make things easier. In fact, it's now essentially a priority with the loss of Hernandez. It does help one to remember that the offensive system, though, is really hard wired to attack the middle of the field.

I am excited to see the defense in preseason I do think there's some real potential for it to be better this year. I'm most excited about what seems to be an increase in athleticism among the front seven. And the secondary I believe is improved as long as Talib and Dennard stay healthy. Can't wait to see what this group does once camp and preseason start. Back in 2003 and 2004, I used to enjoy watching the defense more than I did the offense. It's been a while since I've felt that way. The defense just makes me nervous whenever they are on the field. I'm just waiting for that big pass play or other breakdown that's going to blow a lead . . .

I am very excited. Jones was ahead of the curve last season, and I loved Hightower as a selection (though I saw moments where he showed a lazy work ethic out there last season).

I still think they are a couple seasons ... really a star or two ... away from feilding a "great" defense ... if that is what we expect. I certainly think, in New England where you play a bad weather schedule, building the defense up is a better formula.

They used to play to get the ball back to the Offense with a minute or so left.

The huge irony? New England won three nail biters by FGs in their run.

If NEs defense can even hold the Giants to a FG on their last drives in those games ... there is ample time to move the ball into position and take a kick in the second game, and they win the first one outright.